I really don't know much about the science behind this, but as I said on another thread, I like the idea of adding weight to each lift each workout until your rep range is too low, then lightening the weight and starting over. This follows the progressive load principle that all those HST users go ga-ga over, allows you to vary your rep range constantly, and is very simple. I know some very large individuals who do this, and I now do it as well and it seems to be working so far.

I swear by periodization,training for hypertrophy,strength and power.This has been the staple of my training the last 11 months.Not only have I lost 70lbs of fat I must og gained at least 20-30 pounds of muscle during the same time...

Periodization, under one form or another, is the very basis of continued hypertrophy. Possibly, strength gains themselves can be had without periodization.

Periodization, in its less restrictive definition, is simply changing the type of routine you do from time to time. Of course, "Periodization" has been a coined term for planned and thought-out routine changes, going from strength, to mass, to power, to definition periods.

Even if you're going to be in any phase for a long time, you're still going to change many things in your routine, and eventually go back to things you've done before. That's some kind of periodization right there. It is absolutely necessary to the success of your endeavour, but sometimes alll the planning and work of a formal "Periodization" approach don't really add up to that much more in terms of results than going "Hum, I've been doing short rest and high reps for a while, let's change to medium reps and long rest for a few weeks"...

I'm all about the KISS... i dont think that scheme is complicated at all - just long because i broke it down week by week. I have seen some whacked out complex training schemes... but the simple ones always seem to work best.

There's nothing wrong with what you've got up there IMO, its just that some people (nobody here of course )seem to get all caught up in the most scientific way of doing things that they just get confused. Periodization is great, but I see so many guys using these complex training programs that they found in this magazine or that website and it bothers me to see people spinning their wheels and going nowhere.

Abut periodization, I make up my own program that follow this philosophy, and had a question about different kind of hypertrophy.

Would that be correct to say that the longer you put the muscle under tension, the better sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will occur (let's say 40 sec of TUT or so) and about 20-35 sec, it will be geared most toward myofibrillar hypertrophy. Or is the number of reps more important since more reps means more work done (law of physic), so more work would mean more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy?

More reps doesn't equal more work done. The reason for that is that the equation reps x range of motion = work done assumes a given tempo for the reps. Just holding a weight without moving it is work. Hold a 50-lb dumbell out in front of your face with your arm fully extended for a few hours and you'll see what I mean. This is because of good old gravity. Lowering a weight slowly is more work than lowering it more quickly.

There is a lot of questioning about which kind of training will give you which kind of growth. Do you know which training STYLE will release which HORMONES? That is where you need to look in the first place because more often than not, total-body hormonal, and hopefully anabolic, response to training is more important than which specific exercise you do, all thought in terms of muscle-level stimuli but completely forgetting that the body is a whole.

In other words, unless you understand the role of systemic IGF-1 vs autocrine IGF-1, how testosterone, growth hormone, cortisol and insulin all work and how to increase or decrease each of these hormones by changing your training style and nutrition, and all these things' effects on your body as a whole and muscles in particular, down to the microbiology of it all, including the myonuclear number phenomena, then it's not a valid question, yet.